Moderate Democrats can relax

Bernie Sanders is on track to be the Democratic nominee.

It's OK.

President Sanders would be lucky to make any change at all. Vote blue.

Sanders appears to have eliminated Warren as a rival. That is huge. Neither Biden, nor Buttigieg, nor Klobuchar emerged as a survivor, which is also huge.

This leaves Bloomberg between Sanders and the nomination. Bloomberg revealed himself to be so unprepared to be a retail politician that it will be near-impossible for him to define himself as a person who represents a popular groundswell of support. 

A path leads to Sanders getting the nomination even without getting  majority of the votes. Sanders and his supporters defined 2016 as a case of him being unjustly robbed by the DNC. There is another potential interpretation, that the 2016 nomination had a predictable, reasonable result, given that the candidate who served a lifetime as a Democrat (Hillary) got the most votes, and in a close contest was the preferred candidate over a candidate (Bernie) who insisted he wasn't a Democrat. 

But the "robbed" story is powerful and persistent, so unless some other candidate clearly surpasses Sanders, then Sanders will likely need to get the nomination. A non-Sanders unity candidate will be tainted by the 2016 history. It would be better for the Democratic establishment to let Sanders have the nomination than to deny Sanders the nomination and create a permanent divide in the Party, the progressive Sanders/AOC left versus the moderates. Denying Sanders could create a permanent third party. AOC said it aloud, that in any other country than the USA, she and Biden would be in rival parties, not the same one.

Sanders would have defeated Bloomberg by successfully defining the election as a showdown between people and plutocrats. An affable, charismatic Bloomberg might have won that fight, but not the charmless, cold Bloomberg we saw on stage. 

So, given that history, what would Sanders' general election narrative be?  Sanders would argue that it comes down to change versus a dysfunctional status quo. The medical care situation is indefensibly expensive, college is unaffordable, income disparity is at the highest since the Gilded Age. His argument is that any system that creates so many billionaires, simultaneously with so many people struggling, is clearly wrong. His win over Bloomberg would be proof the people can win in a fight against plutocracy.

Said simply, Sanders represents change, and a new New Deal.

What would Trump's narrative be? He is already saying it, that Bernie Sanders is a dangerous socialist, with kooky ideas on prison voting, on Soviet honeymoons, on free stuff for illegal immigrants, on taking over all health care choices, on raising taxes on everyone including anybody with a job, on abandoning Israel, on hating Christians and the flag and traditional America, and destroying the economy that is working so well.

Said simply: Trump represents continued prosperity vs. Socialist poverty and liberal excess.

The test for Sanders is just how discontented Americans are. Maybe young people and people in poverty will--at long last--turn out to vote. History suggest people who need economic revolution don't bother to vote it in. This time might be different. 

Much more reliable voters are people in middle class suburbs that shifted from Trump back to moderate Democrats in 2018. Their vote for the Democratic legislator was a vote for normal-ness, not change.  Sanders' message of revolution and change will seem off base and risky. Democratic-oriented pundits are worried sick that Sanders will turn off those moderates voters, comfortable people, people with jobs, people with health care, people who dislike Trump but who are not looking for revolution.

No need to worry.

There is a pathway to victory. It rests in the realization that Sanders comes across as a big talking visionary, not a can-do legislative genius. (Can do is the Bloomberg theme, not Sanders')  Medicare for All doesn't even have majority of support by Democrats, much less a majority in either House or Senate. Sanders' programs will be understood to be like Trump and his Wall that Mexico will pay for, or the health plan Trump promised would provide much better coverage, be universal, and be much cheaper than the ACA. Big, grand talk. Something to shout about at rallies, but not real.

Sanders might get a boost from the young and excited who think big change will happen. They will dream and hope. The reality of inertia will not be apparent until after the inauguration. 

Moderate Democrats and never-Trumpers need not worry about Sanders. By election day sophisticated strategic voters will understand the score. They can vote in the full confidence that Sanders will be able to get precious little done, less perhaps than even moderates want done. The House and Senate are still in the hands of plutocrats and special interests, and lots of Republicans.There is inertia. We are no more likely to have Medicare for All than we were to have Mexico pay for a wall or Trump's great, universal, inexpensive health care program.

Moderates can relax, and vote blue.